MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220974935 · doi:10.1117/12.2611837

Phase recognition and cautery localization in basal cell carcinoma surgical videos

2022· article· en· W4220974935 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas March, Jessica R. Rodgers, Amoon Jamzad, Alice Santilli, Rebecca Hisey, Doug McKay, J. F. Rudan, Martin Kaufmann, Kevin Ren, Gábor Fichtinger, Parvin Mousavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHedgehog Signaling Pathway Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkComputer visionBasal cell carcinomaIntersection (aeronautics)Deep learningPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineBasal cellPathologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical excision for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is a common treatment to remove the affected areas of skin. Minimizing positive margins around excised tissue is essential for successful treatment. Residual cancer cells may result in repeat surgery; however, detecting remaining cancer can be challenging and time-consuming. Using chemical signal data acquired while tissue is excised with a cautery tool, the iKnife system can discriminate between healthy and cancerous tissue but lacks spatial information, making it difficult to navigate back to suspicious margins. Intraoperative videos of BCC excision allow cautery locations to be tracked, providing the sites of potential positive margins. We propose a deep learning approach using convolutional neural networks to recognize phases in the videos and subsequently track the cautery location, comparing two localization methods (supervised and semi-supervised). Phase recognition was used for preprocessing to classify frames as showing the surgery or the start/stop of iKnife data acquisition. Only frames designated as showing the surgery were used for cautery localization. Fourteen videos were recorded during BCC excisions with iKnife data collection. On unseen testing data (2 videos, 1,832 frames), the phase recognition model showed an overall accuracy of 86%. Tool localization performed with a mean average precision of 0.98 and 0.96 for supervised and semisupervised methods, respectively, at a 0.5 intersection over union threshold. Incorporating intraoperative phase data with tool tracking provides surgeons with spatial information about the cautery tool location around suspicious regions, potentially improving the surgeon's ability to navigate back to the area of concern.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHedgehog Signaling Pathway StudiesFrench-language works237,207